IN RE: RETHINASWAMY AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeals have been instituted by the first accused (Aziz), the second accused (Antoine), the third accused (Bacha), the fifth accused (Rettinasamy) and the tenth accused (Sadasivame), from the convictions and sentences of the Tribunal Criminal, Karikal, dated 21st December, 1963. The appeals have been preferred as Pourvoi en Cassation to us, and also under Sec. 10 of the Pondicherry (Administration) Act, XLIX of 1962. The matter involves a careful scrutiny of the following inter -related aspects. Firstly, the procedure followed in the French Courts, particularly as the trial at the Criminal Session was by jury. Secondly, the relevant provisions of the French Code Penal, under which the convictions have been imposed. Thirdly, the established facts of the record of evidence. Finally, the principles of law upon which we could interfere in a case of this character, in the context of the facts established against each appellant individually and the degree to which such interferences would be warranted.

(2.) We shall first deal with the facts of this case, at least as established in broad outline. We shall also indicate the parts stated to have been played, according to the evidence, by the appellants, who are now before us. After this, we shall proceed to scrutinize the related aspects of the criminal procedure adopted in the French Courts culminating in the trial by jury, the relevant provisions of the Code Penal, and the degree to which those ingredients have been held correctly established on the facts.

(3.) The broad charge was that the first and fifth accused among the appellants, along with another Sabapady alias Kichenassamy Nadar, who has been acquitted, a certain Devendirane, with a view to wreak vengeance on him for providing information to the Customs authorities at Karikal in respect of the systematic smuggling of goods carried on by the acquitted accused and these accused. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are said to have directly assisted in the kidnapping or abduction. The tenth accused is the driver of the taxi in which the abducted victim was ultimately taken to the spot of murder. Prosecution further claims that accused Nos. 1 to 3 inflicted physical torture upon Devendirane, that the young man died then, or a little subsequently, and that accused Nos. 5 to 7 and the ninth accused, the last three of whom are not before us, took the dying victim or the dead body in a country craft (catamaran) out into the sea, and threw the young man overboard. Admittedly, the body has never been recovered. Sabapady alias Kichenassamy Nadar, who according to the prosecution, was the true architect of this crime, was not physically present during the operations, and has been acquitted upon a plea of alibi, which was accepted by the Tribunal Criminal. One Ramayen, a minor, was also charged for complicity, being the son of the aforesaid Sabapady Nadar; his case is not now before us.